So after weeks of yelling, moralizing, and pretending standards are real, Alabama got in anyway.
Which is honestly the funniest possible outcome.
Because the entire debate was never about whether Alabama deserved it. The résumé was there the whole time… Strength of schedule. Quality wins. Ranked wins. A conference title appearance. All the things everyone claims matter when the logo isn’t Alabama.
And that was true both years.
Last year, Alabama had the résumé. Alabama had the strength of schedule. Alabama had the quality wins. SMU did not. Everyone knew it. But instead of comparing who actually played whom, the conversation shifted to a much safer talking point. Alabama didn’t make the conference title game. SMU did. SMU lost it. And somehow that loss was treated like a positive.
At least they played, right? Losing a championship game was apparently more impressive than not being there at all. That was the logic, and we were told to treat it like a principle.
It wasn’t just fans saying it either. National voices were very clear. One prominent college football reporter put it this way:
“I think/hope SMU is in regardless of the result in the ACC championship game. I don’t think that the loser of a championship game should be jumped by idle teams ranked below it.”
Clear. Simple. Confident.
The argument was not “SMU should be in if they don’t get blown out.” The argument was to put them in regardless. Fast forward one year.
Alabama actually makes the conference title game. Loses it. And now that same situation suddenly demands the opposite response. Now playing the game is bad. Now losing is disqualifying. Now it’s “how did they not drop?”
The same analysts who sang the praises of SMU last year did not have the same voice for Alabama.
In fact, the tone completely flipped:
“This is the worst selection committee we’ve ever had. Cannot believe Alabama didn’t even drop one spot after the SEC title game blowout.”
So just to be clear, the standard is:
- If SMU loses a title game, don’t punish them.
- If Alabama loses a title game, absolutely punish them.
- If Alabama doesn’t play in the title game at all, also punish them.
Same data point. Same circumstance. Different logo. Different conclusion.
Clear bias from these so called experts and people get behind them because they are sick and tired of seeing that script A with a chance at the title.
Meanwhile, teams with lighter schedules and fewer quality wins get rewarded for elite couch discipline and a strong showing in the “didn’t lose this weekend” category.
That’s not criteria. That’s outcome shopping.
And the funniest part is how the strength of schedule quietly disappears whenever it becomes inconvenient. Alabama had it last year. Alabama had it again this year. SMU didn’t have it last year, but that never seemed to matter. Conference titles didn’t suddenly become sacred. They also didn’t suddenly stop mattering. They just became whatever people needed them to be in that moment. Flexible rules are great when you don’t want a consistent answer.
Alabama didn’t sneak in. They didn’t get a gift. They didn’t benefit from some secret exemption. They got in because when you actually line up the résumés and stop pretending fatigue is a metric, they belonged.
And once Alabama was in, all that logic quietly evaporated. No more principles. No more outrage. Just a quick pivot to the next argument.
You don’t have to like Alabama. You don’t have to enjoy seeing them there again. But watching people bend themselves into philosophical knots just to avoid saying “yeah, the résumé was good enough” is objectively hilarious.
The math won. Again.
And next year, when the same arguments get recycled with a new coat of paint, we’ll do this all over again. Because consistency is optional.
Arguing about Alabama, apparently, is not
Shout out to the playoff committee for being consistent while everyone on social media sat there and cried all day. Time to wax Oklahoma.